Wednesday, January 11, 2012

State of Play, Briefly

Rick Santorum needs to win South Carolina to have any chance. Don't see that happening.

Jon Huntsman said that "in New Hampshire, they pick presidents." They didn't pick Huntsman. Buh-bye.

Newt Gingrich has proven conclusively that he hasn't learned a damned thing since his days as Speaker. He, or rather his "Super PAC," has a lot of money to spend on South Carolina. While you can buy a lot of attack ads with 5 mil, it's not going to be enough.

Ron Paul likely will be able to contest Romney all the way to the convention. And he should.

If you want two other smart takes on the state of play, check out our friend First Ringer over at Shot in the Dark and James "Editorial We" Taranto at the WSJ. I highly recommend both.

6 comments:

First Ringer
said...

A point on Taranto:

I think he's right in a general sense that attacking Romney over Bain now helps him over the long haul (assuming, as we can right now, that he'll win the nomination). But there's a difference between preparing the battlefield and turning it into a desert - and I'm worried Gingrich especially is trying to do the later.

Gingrich (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the field) are rapidly approaching a point of no return where their commentary leaves them no bridge back to the party. I have zero problems hitting Romney on a myriad of issues, even Bain since it will come up in the general. But given Gingrich's inflammatory rhetoric, it does seem like he's going (in the words of Rush Limbaugh) "Perot" all over Mitt's backside in a personal effort to damage Romney at all costs.

Ron Paul, for his faults (and there are a few) seems to be having the time of his life right now. I actually enjoy listening to him. I hope he sticks around to the convention, and makes Mittens sweat the whole way there.

I can't stand Gingrich, but I really appreciate the fact that he went there with Bain. If Romney wants to run on the strength of his private sector experience, that part of his resume can and should be scrutinized. Most people don't understand what private equity firms actually do. (It used to be referred to as "leveraged buyouts".) Certainly Romney should get some credit for the success stories (Staples, etc.) but that has to be weighed against all the jobs lost in all the other companies liquidated along the way.

A private equity firm exists to maximize returns to investors. "Job creation", when it occurs, is a happy side-effect. Just as often, returns are best maximized by eliminating jobs.

That's not an indictment of capitalism. In fact, it's an essential part of a free market: some firms need to fail, freeing up capital for more productive ventures. But to present work in private equity as "job creation" is somewhere between incomplete and disingenuous.

But to present work in private equity as "job creation" is somewhere between incomplete and disingenuous.

Agree 100%, Brian. The larger issue is the fallacious notion that any president, or would-be president, can be a "job creator." Not part of the job. What a president can (and should) do is make it easier for those who do create jobs to go about the task. When governments try to create jobs, we get Solyndra.